Alleged victims are now more likely to face cross-examination about earlier sexual encounters. The House of Lords has ruled that a person who claims to be the victim of a sexual assault may now be cross-examined about a previous sexual relationship with the person accused of the assault if the evidence of their relationship is so relevant that that there would be a danger the defendant would not otherwise get a fair trial.

Under legislation which took effect last year, evidence that a complainant had consented to sexual activity on another occasion could not be put before a court. There were exceptions allowing the evidence to be heard if the activity had taken place "at or about the same time" as the event with which the accused was charged or the incident was so similar to the events charged as to be more than coincidence.

Yesterday, the law lords ruled by a majority of four to one that the law should be given a broader meaning as a result of the Human Rights Act. They said the law as passed by Parliament could, on the face of it, prevent an accused person from putting forward relevant evidence which might be critical to his defence.

The judges found a way of interpreting the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999, in a way that respected the accused's right to a fair trial, thus avoiding the embarrassment to the Government of a finding that recent legislation was incompatible with the Human Rights Convention.

Related Articles

Lord Slynn admitted that the wording of the relevant section appeared very restrictive, but he thought it was not impossible to read it in a way that would result in a fair hearing. However, Lord Hope reminded his fellow judges that their role was to interpret the law rather than to legislate themselves.

Lord Steyn said that "as a matter of common sense, a prior sexual relationship between the complainant and the accused may, depending on the circumstances, be relevant to the issue of consent".

To exclude evidence of whether the couple were lovers or strangers created the risk of "disembodying" the case before the jury. "It also increases the danger of miscarriages of justice."

The case before the law lords involved a man awaiting trial for rape who claimed that his alleged victim had consented to sex. He claimed that their sexual relationship had covered a period of about three weeks prior to the incident complained of, the last occasion on which they had sex having been one week earlier.

The trial judge ruled that under the law as it stood the complainant could not be questioned about her alleged sexual relationship with the defendant. In overturning that decision, Lord Steyn stressed the importance of protecting the complainant from indignity and from humiliating questions.

None of the parties can be identified as the man is still awaiting trial. The same issue has arisen in at least 13 other cases which are waiting to be heard. It will be for the trial judge to decide whether the evidence of the alleged earlier relationship should be admitted in each case, taking into account the guidelines laid down by the law lords.